General News Chat

[Red Zone]

I believe IF found guilty, then he could get suspended from parliament, which in turn could trigger a by-election. If his local party choose to kick him out.
Considering he was selected just last week by his local party (Uxbridge?) to represent them at next year's election I suspect that won't be happening, if he were to be proved he lied to parliament.

We all know he will be found not guilty.

I don't think that's right. I think how it works is if he is suspended from Parliament for two weeks or more then if more than 10% of the electorate in his constituency sign a recall petition then that triggers a by-election. He could stand if selected by the Tories, which as you suggest is likely, but given it would only need a 7.5% swing from Tory to Labour there is every chance he would lose (recent by-elections have seen 10% plus swings) especially when you factor in likely tactical voting by LibDems to make sure he is kicked out.

So as I see it if he gets suspended for two weeks he is then on a very likely path to being kicked out of Parliament (nothing stops the Tories from then parachuting him into a much safer Tory seat at the next GE of course, if they are so inclined).

[57vintage]

Isn’t the snag that the Commons has to have a vote once the committee has reported?

If so, there’s no way that they’ll vote in such a way as to fire up the Uxbridge lieges, even unto 10%, and see such a high-profile figure thrashed in a by-election when with a fair wind, he’ll get his cards in next year’s poll. He’s already been re-selected for Uxbridge, as I recall.

Anyway, even if I was an elector in Uxbridge, I’d still have fûck all for which to vote. Meh.

[57vintage]

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-partygate-inquiry-hearing-date-watch-privileges-committee-b1068768.html

[Red Zone]

Isn’t the snag that the Commons has to have a vote once the committee has reported?

If so, there’s no way that they’ll vote in such a way as to fire up the Uxbridge lieges, even unto 10%, and see such a high-profile figure thrashed in a by-election when with a fair wind, he’ll get his cards in next year’s poll. He’s already been re-selected for Uxbridge, as I recall.

Anyway, even if I was an elector in Uxbridge, I’d still have fûck all for which to vote. Meh.

It's a tough one. You would imagine every single opposition MP will vote against him. That means only 40 or so out of 360 Tory MP's need to vote against him (less if some abstain). I would imagine the likes of Teresa May and her ilk won't hesitate to vote against him and many others might be washing their hair that day and won't manage to make the vote.

Tick tock BoJo, tick tock

[DonUnder]

Imagine this yahoo being your poster girl

https://twitter.com/prguy17/status/1...1hoqdL1abV878g

Ten people turned up.

Of course you have now spread her message.

There was me thinking you got it.

[TheDeeDon]

I don't think that's right. I think how it works is if he is suspended from Parliament for two weeks or more then if more than 10% of the electorate in his constituency sign a recall petition then that triggers a by-election. He could stand if selected by the Tories, which as you suggest is likely, but given it would only need a 7.5% swing from Tory to Labour there is every chance he would lose (recent by-elections have seen 10% plus swings) especially when you factor in likely tactical voting by LibDems to make sure he is kicked out.

So as I see it if he gets suspended for two weeks he is then on a very likely path to being kicked out of Parliament (nothing stops the Tories from then parachuting him into a much safer Tory seat at the next GE of course, if they are so inclined).

You pay for more attention to it than I do.

I don't think the Tories will vote against him with a GE coming up, but would be nice to see him lose his seat at the said GE. I don't think that will happen either.
As a poster o here said, the man is Teflon coated.

I do suspect his eventual downfall to be huge.

[Mason89]

Ten people turned up.

Of course you have now spread her message.

There was me thinking you got it.

The message being she’s a demented harpy. You need to fight fire with fire with these c*nts. When they f*ck up, that has to spread just as quickly as when they’re doing their performance hate. Ignoring them simply doesn’t work. Their audience needs to see that they’re just as thick as they are, that they’re nothing special. That’s why Andrew Tate is sitting in a Romanian jail. We can all ignore them then

[DonUnder]

The message being she’s a demented harpy. You need to fight fire with fire with these c*nts. When they f*ck up, that has to spread just as quickly as when they’re doing their performance hate. Ignoring them simply doesn’t work. Their audience needs to see that they’re just as thick as they are, that they’re nothing special. That’s why Andrew Tate is sitting in a Romanian jail. We can all ignore them then

Good for you still having some hope.

I suspect i lost the last of my confidence in the public at large the last time i said "Oh I have the 15c at the checkout" and was greeted with an open mouthed stare.

[TheDeeDon]

We've had a few strikes over the UK over the past year and politicians have been very quick to condem the strikes.

Then I read about the current strikes in France, relating to the raising of the state pension age to 64 and they really don't **** about with placards and picket lines.

We really are a docile bunch of fannies over here in comparison.

[donsdaft]

If you want to raise the state pension age, do it to the 16 year olds.
Everyone else entered into a contract the minute they started paying tax.

[Mason89]

If you want to raise the state pension age, do it to the 16 year olds.
Everyone else entered into a contract the minute they started paying tax.

Couldn’t agree more.

I still maintain everyone should lose their right to vote, the moment they claim their state pension

[donsdaft]

Fair enough
But given that really rich people could keep their vote then just make it age related.

55 I’m pretty sure I was promised

[TheDeeDon]

If you want to raise the state pension age, do it to the 16 year olds.
Everyone else entered into a contract the minute they started paying tax.

In the year 2023, no country should be raising the state pension age.

Good on the French for trying to do something about it

[WhenTattieFlooredChas]

Imagine this yahoo being your poster girl

https://twitter.com/prguy17/status/1...1hoqdL1abV878g

Much better turnout for her latest try 😀

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/25/anti-trans-activist-posie-parker-ends-new-zealand-tour-after-violent-protests-erupt

[WhenTattieFlooredChas]

In the year 2023, no country should be raising the state pension age.

Good on the French for trying to do something about it

It could be argued that as we are living longer we need to work longer. The longer we're retired the more it costs the state, but there isn't enough money in the pot.

But as donsdaft points out, those who started work previously shouldn't be penalised at short notice.

I would also say if we had a fairer tax system, where the rich paid a bit more to society, with little effect on their needed wealth, then we could keep retirement ages static.

We are also hell bent on keeping people alive for as long as possible, even if that means leaving them with no real quality of, life pissing themselves in a home for years. That costs a lot. Personally I say let me die and not be a drain on resources when i have no real quality of life left.

The French (for the most part) also have a way more generous tax scheme than us (i haven't researched this, i was told by an aussie colleague living in Bordeaux). That needs to be paid for somehow, and people are taking advantage of it for longer because they live longer.

And finally, do you want to be sat retired for 30-35 years? I saw my dad retire at 58. He's 82 now and has just pottered aimlessly for the last 10 years. He was smart, sharp and witty, and I believe if he hadn't retired so young he still would be. My father-in-law kept working to about 72/73 and is all the better for it at 79.

But it has all been a bit sneaky, and those nearing retirement shouldn't be penalised at short notice.

Don't prolong life, lower pension payments, raise the retirement age or (my preference) have a fairer tax system so the rich pay more. I'm not rich, I don't earn loads, but my wife and i are not on the breadline. I would pay a couple of pennies in the pound more if it meant better conditions for all.

Don't know what my point is, and haven't really moved this on much, but i a accept I will likely work to 68 with the way things are right now.